Newly elected Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) should try to reconnect the party with Taiwanese society, or the KMT might never leave behind its role as an ineffective opposition.
The party’s chairperson election had been neglected by most Taiwanese until one of the four candidates, Sun Yat-sen School president Chang Ya-chung (張亞中), drew unprecedented attention with his vehement rhetoric during a televised debate on Sept. 4, appealing to far-right deep-blue supporters.
A TVBS poll conducted in the days after the debate showed that Chang had taken the lead from the more centrist Chu, a former New Taipei City mayor who led the party from 2015 to 2016, while incumbent KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) had only 12.8 percent support.
Chu’s return to the chairmanship raises the question of whether he can give the KMT a new direction after Chiang’s leadership proved ineffective.
Ahead of the vote, Chiang said in a radio interview on Friday that the KMT chairman would have to work on a host of urgent tasks, including stabilizing the party, gearing up for four referendums in December, next year’s local elections and the 2024 presidential election.
While former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) did not publicly lobby for any of the four candidates, his shadow fell over their campaigns.
Chiang told the interviewer that he had spoken to Han by telephone, quoting him as saying that he did not favor any of the candidates. The statement was directed at Chu, who had often been seen with former Han aides on the campaign trail and had said that he was also in contact with Han.
Although Han was defeated by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in last year’s presidential election and recalled by Kaohsiung voters a few months later, many KMT members still seem impressed by his ability to rally hundreds of thousands of supporters during his presidential campaign.
However, if the KMT remains unable to respond to the needs of Taiwanese society and remains obsessed with the craze about Han — a populist known for his inflated performances — the party will remain in opposition for many years to come.
The KMT leadership should switch its attention to the nation’s primary problems and ask itself whether the party can present better solutions than the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
While many countries are reopening their borders after COVID-19 travel restrictions, Taiwan’s strategy to safely follow suit needs deliberation. Whether the government has used relief funds efficiently also requires monitoring.
Meanwhile, the government has applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Many thorny issues are ensuing, including whether to lift a ban on certain food imports from Japan and how to mitigate the potential effect of joining the bloc on domestic industries.
It is time for the KMT to set aside its hostility toward Japan and demonstrate its ability to monitor the government’s CPTPP membership negotiations. Following its messy battle against US pork imports, the KMT should resort to rational and scientific arguments about Japanese food imports.
However, addressing its relations with Beijing perhaps remains the biggest challenge. At a time when more countries are joining the US’ efforts to rein in China’s hegemonic ambitions, the KMT needs to convince Taiwanese that it is not pro-China and is unwilling to sell out Taiwan, as the DPP claims.
With ever fewer Taiwanese being nostalgic about China — and the so-called “1992 consensus” being rejected by most members of the public, in which a majority identifies as Taiwanese, not Chinese — the KMT’s insistence on the “consensus” rings hollow.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent